Janine M. Jackson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
68A01-1601-CR-120
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 31, 2016Background
- On October 11, 2014, Jeffrey Brenton was mowing his lawn when Janine Jackson began yelling at him from across the street and then approached him.
- Jackson crossed to Brenton’s side, tried to block his path, trapped him against a house, and (according to Brenton) slapped him on the side of the face.
- Brenton called police while Jackson left; officers later encountered Jackson, observed signs of intoxication, and arrested her.
- The State charged Jackson with Class B misdemeanor battery under Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(b)(1).
- At a bench trial Brenton testified Jackson slapped him; Jackson denied the slap and said she had drunk alcohol and confronted him because the mower came close to hitting her son.
- The trial court found Jackson guilty, imposed a 180-day suspended sentence, and denied her motion to correct error; Jackson appealed claiming insufficient evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a Class B misdemeanor battery conviction | The State: Brenton’s testimony that Jackson slapped him is sufficient to prove touching in a rude, insolent, or angry manner | Jackson: Brenton’s testimony is incredibly dubious and conflicts with prior statements, so evidence is insufficient | Affirmed: appellate court treats witness credibility as fact-finder’s province; uncorroborated testimony of a victim is sufficient and incredible-dubiosity rule does not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence and inferences to support a verdict)
- Stephenson v. State, 53 N.E.3d 558 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (describing limited application of the incredible-dubiosity rule)
- Carter v. State, 31 N.E.3d 17 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (examples of inherently improbable testimony and scope of dubiosity rule)
- Carter v. State, 754 N.E.2d 877 (Ind. 2001) (uncorroborated testimony of one witness can sustain a conviction)
- Manuel v. State, 971 N.E.2d 1262 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (incredible-dubiosity rule does not apply to mere conflicts between statements)
- Watkins v. State, 571 N.E.2d 1262 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (discussing when testimony may be inherently improbable)